The moderator Chuck Todd had brought up Trump's response to Khizr Khan — "I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention, am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq War, not me." — and Doris Kearns Goodwin had recycled her idea that the question is "temperament" and Alex Castellanos seemed to think he was improving on that by saying "it's a choice between temperament and character." Castellanos honed his utterly dull distinction by redoing it as New Testament/Old Testament:

You know, is it a New Testament election where things are going swimmingly and we turn the other cheek? Or is this an Old Testament election where we could lose it all and an eye for an eye?

I keep hearing all these Trump antagonists portraying Trump as "dark," but calling someone dark is dark, and Brooks looked way too psyched about Hell. Meanwhile, Khizr Khan was on CNN declaring that Trump is "a black soul":

"He is a black soul, and this is totally unfit for the leadership of this country," Khan said. "The love and affection that we have received affirms that our grief -- that our experience in this country has been correct and positive. The world is receiving us like we have never seen. They have seen the blackness of his character, of his soul."

Let the MSM, Hillary's campaign, and all her shills keep portraying Trump as 'DARK'. Cause Jane and John Doe don't see/hear the darkness in his message, they actually hear/see reality. So if Hillary is lying about Trump, is she telling the truth about herself?

As for Muslims in the US armed forces, besides the case of Nidal Hasan, who killed 15 soldiers, the 2003 case of Hasan Akbar, who fragged his comrades, killing two and wounding 14. His death sentence was upheld only last year.

But what if smearing Trump as a black soul deserving of being slandered for not bowing down to Muslim men doesn't work?

What if Trump keeps right on exposing the Theocrat Muslim Caliph bastards and their mind controlled suicide warriors as sneaky people dedicated to murdering everybody else, including this guy's son for bravely joining us to fight back? What will the Muslim super frauds do then? Why, they kill us of course with swords, real assault rifles, anti-personel bombs, and nukes. But only if we invite them in to establish bases ( I.e., Mosques) from which to do it.

So Mr. Khan complains that Trump has proposed a policy that would have kept his [Khan's] son out of the U.S. Well, if the U.S. had a coherent and effective method for "vetting" immigrants [be they Muslim or other] from lands known to produce and export terrorists, then probably no, he would not have been kept out any longer than it took to investigate his background.Mr. Khan seems angrier at Trump's proposal than at the bad guys [Muslims] who killed his son. That puzzles me.And as Trump said, Hillary voted for the Iraq war where his son died -- why is not Mr. Khan's anger targeted at her?Finally, does Mr. Khan have anything positive to suggest for avoiding future terrorist actions on the home ground, described here as likely by FBI Director Comey and former Amb. Bolton?http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/07/fbi-warns-terrorist-diaspora-coming-for-us/

I just watched "The Fifth Estate", a film about Wikileaks with Benedict Cumberbatch as Julian Assange. Pretty good movie about a guy willing to descend into the hell of government secrets. Hillary should be very nervous about the ones he is threatening to release.

If one wants to look, there are a good number of cases of Muslim US servicemen or ex-servicemen arrested for either plotting to commit terrorism in the US or to join foreign terrorist groups. It is indisputable that Muslims in the US military are a significant risk. This is one of those situations where there is right on both sides, the usual tragic case. In an emotional battle of a parent of Nidal Husseins victims vs Captain Khan's parents, what do you get? Grief vs grief, both sides are right. There is no justice available here.

it's pretty normal these days for the Democrats to go full Godwin on Republicans every 4 years, and the rhetoric has exploded so much that their self-loathing for supporting a lying criminal like Hillary has exposed some serious deranged and delusional behavior.

Poor DJT. He is being forced to defend his trying to defend Americans from Muslims by not honoring the Muslims to the extent of surrendering to them.

Back when the world's Oil wealth was still hostage to merciless Sunni Arabs spending the Saudi wealth to export Wahabist invasion teams, all covered up by their BFFs in Texas, he would have been trapped. But the Fracking revolution has set us free from that trap.

I fail to understand Mr. Khan's over the top language. Lots of devout Moslems have died fighting the jihadists. That does not change the fact that the jihadists have declared war on us, and we need to at least defend ourselves.

In other news, Mrs. Clinton apparently was challenged by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday about her e-mails and what James Comey had said about them and she looked him straight in the eye and said she had not heard anything like that; as far as she was concerned, Comey had confirmed everything she had said about it previously.

Some PAC is runnn g and ad with a re-cap of the interchange between Trey Gowdy and James Comey at the follow-up session with the House committee.Are we to believe that her staff has kept Mrs. Clinton from seeing this?

He is a black soul, and this is totally unfit for the leadership of this country," Khan said.

Just like every other Democratic meme, this one will get pushed past its sell-by date. I still don't understand why these folks were up there. Did Trump ever say that he didn't want Muslim American citizens to not join the Armed Forces? No, he said that we should have a moratorium on Muslim immigration "until we figure out what's going on over there".

What hacks me off about all this is that while the American chattering classes for excoriate Trump for his talk about "building a wall", or limiting Muslim immigration, or monitoring mosques, does anybody talk about what's happening in Europe? Well, let me fill you in.

Immigrants, most of them Muslim, are being forceably removed from Greece & sent to "facilities" in Turkey, paid for by European money. Because there's nobody better known for their sympathies towards foreigners than Turkish bureaucrats paid/bribed by Euro money, of which I'm sure a large part will disappear into corrupt pockets.

France is under "martial law lite", and has been & will be for months. The French cops are kicking in doors of mosques & muslim homes & coming in armed to the teeth. Hundreds have been arrested, which means that probably many hundreds more doors have been kicked in.

There is not a wall to keep out Muslims in Europe, there are "walls". Multiple countries west of Greece now have walled (at least barbed wire) barriers to block immigrants going through Greece. Britain uses the English Channel, & there has been an immigrant shantytown in Calais trying to get over for how many months now?

France has stopped immigration. Many other countries have, too, just more quietly. Denmark advertises in the home countries of the immigrants -- "We don't want you in Denmark".

You know, I hate Donald Trump. I don't think I could bear to pull the lever for him. But I am coming around to the idea that I'd like to see him win. Just so all of these hand-clasping milquetoasts can spend a solid four years with the heebie-jeebies, the shakes, the jitters,and the vapors.

So, about 10 days ago someone, somewhere on this blog was blasting some of the GOP/speakers for using parent's (i.e., Pat Smith and children killed by illegals) grief as a political tool. And I asked them if they would be as equally critical of the Dems when they did the same thing - and the poster said "of course".

So far, I haven't seen a repeat, but we were on the road (traveling from Cleveland to Madison WI to home) during the Dem Convention, so maybe I missed it.

Is there a way to search for my particular posts so that I could track down the original conversation?

This is basically the same trick that Ann Coulter pointed out back in 2006 with the so called "Jersey Girls." Take someone who has suffered a personal tragedy, bring them on stage and have them make a thoroughly political argument, and then attack any of their critics as being callous or uncaring for attacking someone who has suffered personally. It's a cheap, tacky debating trick. Hey, Trump lost a brother tragically to substance abuse, does that make his opinions on drug policy unassailable?

Just so all of these hand-clasping milquetoasts can spend a solid four years with the heebie-jeebies, the shakes, the jitters,and the vapors.

You know, I wasn't really for Brexit either. But then I saw Christiane Amanpour hyperventilating when she interviewed that pro-Brexit MP. At that point, I thought to myself that not only would I support Brexit, but I'd support everyone in Britain running down to Dover, & having the weight imbalance at the bottom of Britain flip the island tuchis over teakettle into the North Sea. I'd do it just to see the look on Amanpour's face as we all slipped into the briney.

I wonder why David Brooks picked the Seventh Circle. It's not the lowest in Dante's Inferno: that's the Ninth. The Seventh is the destination of suicides, blasphemers, sodomites, and usurers. Does Brooks think these things should be severely punished? Most (all?) of them aren't even crimes these days. Just what is he (or his subconscious) getting at here?

I honor the son, but why does the father think his son's honor transfers to him? The father is an honorless dolt.

As to Brooks, he wrote in a column published weeks ago that he planned to meet with real Trump voters to assess why they are voting the way they are. To my knowledge he has never followed up. So he's lazy and clueless and he knows it and it bothers him, but not so much so that he is actually going to try to drive outside the Washington Beltway to understand what is going on. Ranting is all that's left to him.

There's something going on out there that folks who spend too much time in Washington, DC, New York, Southern California, and San Francisco don't get. It could have come quietly back in 2010, with the improperly maligned Tea Party, and now it is coming more forcefully -- forcefully enough to give Brooks and his colleagues regular fits of the vapors. And perhaps Hillary will find a way to win and this "something" will be thwarted for another four years. But people are passing their fed up point so, more of them every day, so things not going to stay bottled up and Brooks and Todd and Goodwin and Hillary Clinton and Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell need to get that.

Brooks needs to get this straight. Trump is not the leader of this movement. He is merely its rallying point. With more perspicacity the rallying point might have been Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or any of the other candidates.

Dr Weevil-- my guess is that Brooks confused the seventh circle of Hell with the seventh seal in the Book of Revelation. Brooks clearly watches Ingemar Bergman movies more than he reads either Dante or the Bible.

The headline to your link doesn't say "any entry at all" or anything like it. It says "Immigration". Your expansive meaning is possible, but unlikely. Immigration means coming to stay, & it's right there on line 1.

Trump has neither the temperament as evidenced by his meltdowns every time he perceives himself to be under attack, nor does he have the character as evidenced by his stiffing his contractors and Trump University. As we get closer to November we will see time and again how all the walkbacks and do-overs Trump and the RNC will have to do.

Mikee, you say Mr.Khan has no "decency" for saying what he did to Trump. if Trump had an ounce of decency (or intelligence) he would've ignored Mr. Khan's remarks at the Dem Convention. He would've been better served by shutting his big gaping yap.

Blogger Freder Frederson said...No, he said that we should have a moratorium on Muslim immigration

No, he didn't, he calls for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," not just immigration.

Under Trump's proposal, Khan wouldn't have let back in the country after he finished his tour in Iraq.

7/31/16, 4:38 PM

So Frederson has never heard of hyperbole?Obama, talking about his election:

"generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth."

The coolest thing Trump said this weekend was his claim that Russia wasn't in Ukraine. Also, his response when Stephanopoulos corrected him was awesome.

Plus, the DJT campaign was lying about their two representatives who threw Ukraine under the bus in the R platform committee.

And, it's awesome that DJT can't, over the years, keep his answers straight when stating if he did or did not have a relationship w/ Putin.

I wouldn't say that this adds up to some conspiracy. But, it's hard not to conclude that DJT has gone a bit off the rails here. Presumably this is why he should stick w/ insulting people and telling us that he'll end all crime and violence in America on the day he's elected. Why get bogged down w/ the sort of details and fact-based stuff that have mattered in previous American elections? That's so pre-Trump.

Will Obama and the crooked Dems let Trump win this election? I'm worried.

"Oh, brother. Florida 2000 becomes Florida/Ohio/Pennsylvania 2016? With a 4-4 Supreme Court unable to swing the result to Hillary? And who among us honestly believes that Obama, Lynch and the establishment Republicans running the FBI could investigate an election-tampering scheme and conclude that Hillary was the beneficiary and Trump won the election? Well, never ask a rhetorical question - I am confident that Democrats and establishment Republicans would insist that their investigation was fair and balanced, but in a close election, the half of the voters that went for Trump won't buy it."

Its perfectly reasonable to question the reliability of Muslim servicemen as a class. Note their small numbers vs their propensity to act for or join enemies of the US, not simply that of being criminals. Its a matter of odds and risks.

When Trump first spoke of the ban on Muslims entering the country, he included ALL Muslims which include returning relatives and even returning military. He had to walk that back in the next few days after that as the press and his own Party questioned his ridiculous statement. So many people are continuously having to "translate" what this fool says. We know what he said, we know how many times he or the RNC had to re- state it for him because he was over the top.

Not all Muslims are terrorist killers in the name of Allah. Not all Muslims sympathize with the terrorist killers. Not all Muslims want to have sharia law replace our Western laws and customs. Not all Muslims want to repress women and treat them as chattel. Not all Muslims want to kill homosexuals.

However... A very large number of Muslims do. It doesn't matter if they are Sunni or Shiite, if they are in the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Africa or right here in the U.S.A., many Muslims commit horrific acts of violence against anyone who does not believe exactly as they do, whether that be Muslims of a different sect or the kuffar (unbelievers). A very large number of Muslims sympathize with those who commit terrorist acts. A very large number of Muslims want sharia law, and to oppress women and homosexuals. A very large number of Muslims have beliefs and customs that are antithetical to our society.

And unfortunately, as we've seen in places like San Bernardino, you can have a second-generation Muslim who is born in this country and still sympathizes with his co-religionists over loyalty to this country. Lots of so-called "Americans" from places like Minnesota, etc., flock to the Middle East to commit jihad. And you don't know what exactly will set them off or when they'll "go jihadi," you just know that it's a very real risk when you let Muslims come here. Mohammad from Syria might have a clean record, but if you invite him to come to America, there's no guarantee that his kids won't "get religion" and start killing people. And it's a risk that no other religion poses, and one that we don't need to take.

That's not bigotry, it's common sense. Would that more of our "leaders" had some.

I find the reaction of the chattering classes to Trump's ascendance absolutely disgusting. The "little people" suffered actual tangible measurable losses the last 8 or so years, and have scraped and struggled to keep their heads above water. When they had the temerity to complain, they were contemptuously dismissed as teabaggers, clingers, and angry white men, etc.

But when the same coastal elites suffer no more damage than having their Brahmin status questioned - questioned not even tangibly threatened - the hysterical rhetoric is a thing to behold. As I said, disgusting. The contempt is on display and should be remembered.

PB&Jelly wrote: Wasn't there a time during the primaries when some Rs suggested that Trump was running as a Clinton plant that was supposed to sink the GOP?

That's AprilApple's schtick. But April seems to be against everyone running.

If Trump were a "stalking horse," right about now would be the time to quit. Hillary is duly annointed and would outright win tomorrow if Trump simply collapsed. I'm going repost something that Terry wrote a few days ago because I think it will determine the course of the rest of the election:

Hillary's only trick is to appear inevitable. That doesn't draw voters to the polls, but it attracts donors and discourages the other guy's donors. Her message during the primaries was not a counter to Sanders message, it was "I have already won." Breaking that idea is how Obama won against her in 2008. The only way Trump can win is to break the idea that Hillary is inevitable. He has fourteen weeks.

In the coming weeks, watch the media carefully as they try to tie the notion of inevitability to Hillary and react in horror when it appears to be Trump.

Mr. Khan has absolute moral authority, unlike those lying people whos sons were killed at Benghazi, or those unfortunate-but-it-happens people whos family members were killed by illegals here in the US. He is positively Cindy Sheenan-esqe. If he works out as a good attack on the Donald, he will be canonized by the Left until election day, after which he will no longer be of use unless Trump wins. At which time, dissent will also become patriotic.

The state of Ukraine was created by the Soviet Union under Khrushev and given rather expansive borders since Khrushev was a Ukrainian from the Dombass region.So far, Putin in fact has not invaded the historic boundaries of the Ukraine, even though these admittely were somewhat indefinite, since there never was a defined state as such before.

The "little people" suffered actual tangible measurable losses the last 8 or so years

This is bullshit too. The little people have indeed "suffered actual tangible measurable losses", but they didn't occur in the last eight years. They started with your buddy Ronald Reagan (or hell I'll even give you Jimmy Carter). But it was the policies of Reagan and his successors (including Bill Clinton) that caused the losses. Things are certainly better, but not as good as they could be, than at the end of the GWB administration.

The point here is whether Muslims as a group are a net benefit to the US. Whatever positives they bring, the contrary argument is that there is a large cost associated with them.

Every immigrant group comes with a cost:benefit ratio. Most Asians and Europeans are strongly positive, high productivity:low social problems, few political risks.It is common sense to take these cost:benefit ratios into account.

Actually, most measures of economic health and public wellbeing, as well as entrepreneurship, business formation, etc. peak around 1999/2000. No doubt the long, intermittent decline since then has roots within the preceding era of prosperity, but one does need to deal in facts. As for the general cultural dynamism measures, this has been studied some. It has to be dealt with as a civilizational, not national matter, though we are certainly seeing national effects. There is no doubt we are past the peak, whether the peak was in 1970 or 2000.

Terry wrote: Hillary's only trick is to appear inevitable. That doesn't draw voters to the polls, but it attracts donors and discourages the other guy's donors.

Witness the Koch Brothers announcing their preference for Hillary. The same guys who supported Scott Walker now support Hillary Clinton. If garage mahal weren't shooting birds out in the fields he'd be conflicted.

Trump said immediately "until we can figure out a way to vet them properly." Sounds like a moratorium to me and he even used the term moratorium shortly afterward. Try to keep the lies down, Freder. I know it's hard for you and Hillary.

Perhaps one needs some historical foundations to properly understand this situation. There is no question that you can recruit brave Muslim soldiers. France has been fielding regiments of North Africans since the 1830s, and they have served very well, being regarded as among the elite, from the Tirailleurs at Sebastopol, 1854, to their sons at Worth in 1870, to the hundreds of thousands in the trenches of WWI, to the sacrifice of the brigade of Spahis at Sedan in 1940, and the Moroccan goums that finally broke the German front at Cassino in 1944. However, there is a severe downside, one of these best illustrated by Vitorio de Sica - "Two Women"; the other being the facts of the welfare burden in France, which is as one would expect. On the whole, unless one requires excellent mercenaries above all, it is a poor cost:benefit ratio.

What is striking is that even the Kochs won't align themselves with Trump. He is a bridge too far, even for them. Also McConnel and Ryan have come out to defend the Khans, although tepidly.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/khan-mconnell-trump-226485

"“This shouldn’t be hard," Reid said. "Donald Trump is a sexist and racist man who insults Gold Star parents, stokes fear of Muslims and sows hatred of Latinos. He should not be president and Republican leaders have a moral responsibility to say so.""

Oh good, "absolute moral authority" for the parents of people who die in war is back.It's too bad the Republican National Convention took place JUST a few days too early...the Left was happy to dismiss and mock the parents of a couple of the guys who died at Benghazi so obviously "absolute moral authority" hadn't come back at that point.It's back now, though, when it's useful as a tool to attack someone not on the Left.I guess that's just good luck.

See, a normal person doesn't see that as referring to US Constitutional rights. It means you just said something that the listener believes is unjust or out of order--"You have no right to call me a liar." Etc. We call that common usage. I'd like to see Papa Khan prove that Donalf Trump has not read the Constitution. And if Papa Khan had read it, he would know that Congress can set immigration policy as per their wishes and whims.

Unknown said...What is striking is that even the Kochs won't align themselves with Trump

Striking? It's striking to idiots, maybe. The Kochs are libertarians. The support candidates they think might help the libertarian cause. Usually that means Republicans, but the Kochs aren't conservatives (and they're not really Republicans). Trump's not a conservative, and he's definitely not someone you should expect to support the libertarian cause. It's obvious the Kochs wouldn't support Trump. Well, I say obvious...but I mean it's obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot.

Unknown (5:49pm):"No one said that Mrs.Smith had no 'right' to say what she did."In so many words, maybe not. But GQ writer 'Bethlehem Shoals' (real name Nathaniel Freedman) tweeted "I don’t care how many children Pat Smith lost, I would like to beat her to death." That seems to me way worse than "no right", and as far as I can tell, the guy still works for GQ. Less than two weeks ago, too. Have you been paying attention?

Okay, Unknown, let's make one fact clear -- there is but one mouth for the Trump campaign, and that's Donald's. HRC, on the other hand, is the machine politician. She has other folks to do her dirty work, & they did & do.

Such as: Politifact "fact checking" Patricia Smith's speech right after she gave the speech! Did Politifact fact check the Khan's speech?

Chris Matthews, right after the speech: "it [was] a “gross accusation” that Mrs. Clinton had anything to do with the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi.

“I don’t understand why the Republicans would choose to put this on prime-time television when they have such wonderful stories of American heroism to speak to the American people. I think it was wrong.

Oh, yeah, Unknown the lefties were all sweet & nice to Mrs Smith. But, then for you, Lefties are always sweet & nice, even when they end up killing millions of their own citizens, aren't they?

Trump is one man, the Democratic party is more like HP Lovecrafts monster Shub-Niggurath "The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young".A few of these emanations of the Elder Gods seem to infest this place too.

Pathetic reply from 'Unknown' (6:09pm):No admission that his 5:49pm was wrong, and "as bad or worse" should (obviously!) be "obviously far worse". Par for the course with the troll who can't even be bothered to pick a distinctive pseudonym.

"Retired Marine Corps Gen. John Allen said that if Republican nominee Donald Trump becomes president and follows through on some of the things he’s said on the campaign trail, the U.S. could face a “civil military crisis, the like of which we’ve not seen in this country.”

"When we swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which is a document and a set of principles and it supports the rule of law, one of those is to ensure that we do not obey illegal orders," Allen told told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on "This Week."

More background -Little known fact - Francisco Franco was the driving force behind organizing the bulk of the Moroccan Regulares (mercenaries in Spanish service) in the 1920s/30s, besides of course leading the Spanish Legion. He set up the structure of recruitment and training, and during the Spanish Civil War this served the Nationalist side very well. During the war, at least 100,000 Morroccans served as combat troops on the Nationalist side. He was very proud of this. Even more obscure fact, Franco actually wrote a movie about the "how to" recruit and lead Morroccans, its on Youtube, called "Harka". Its not very good, more of a training film really, but fascinating in its own way. However, after the war, Franco SENT THEM ALL BACK. Save a few for his bodyguard.

John Allen seems to be held to the Democrats/Obama/Clintons by blackmail. He resigned/retired under a cloud in 2012 as fallout of the Petreaus scandal, as it turned out he had been sending masses of communications to HIS mistress also. It seems to have been quite a surprise that he was brought back from retirement in 2014 in what amounts to a general officers command of US and coalition forces- the reason for this seems clear enough, now, the powers that be needed someone with military credibility they could control.

People also forget that Trump's remarks came in the aftermath of San Bernardino massacre and that the wife of the killer had allegedly been vetted. So, the system failed. The status quo failed. Hillary is the status quo. Someone should just ask Khan (or Clinton for that matter) if they are for increased scrutiny of refugees from the Middle East. It's the same question Merkel is getting from her people. If their answer is "no, it's just not possible," then a Trumpian solution is appropriate. That is common sense. Obama's "we can take even more casualties" isn't flying.

buwaya puti said...John Allen seems to be held to the Democrats/Obama/Clintons by blackmail. He resigned/retired under a cloud in 2012 as fallout of the Petreaus scandal, as it turned out he had been sending masses of communications to HIS mistress also.

John Allen is also not the voice of the USMC, though the Dems want you to believe he is.

@MayBee,At the time I came in, there were very strict quotas for the various contries, the stated aim being to keep the ethnic mixture of the U.S. as nearly constant as possible.Also, of course, see the Asian exclusion acts of 1882 and later updates.

General Allen in his statement at the convention said that he was for Hillary! because with her U.S. policies would not be up for sale.A most unfortunate subject to bring up in this context. Was he being sarcastic, perhaps?

We dont know what they have over Comey, but its pretty clear what they have over Allen. The fool sent 30,000 pages of material (is that a magic number?) by email to his onetime mistress Jill Khawam-Kelley.

Presumably this response could be related to the Althouse post that was about interpreting DJT.

It's actually Mr Khan's anger with Donald Trump that I'm trying to interpret. I'm not sure what sacrifice and the Constitution have to do with his anger at Trump. But he is a hurt man, and he is allowed his anger.

Hagar- thanks. Yes, that's why I'm a little baffled by the Constitution part, and even the push back against the idea. Pretty much everyone agrees there is no way to vet the infiltrators right now. Is it too much to ask for the Democrats to push back with some ideas or some soothing words, rather than just anger and insinuations?

A lot of them have mistresses.Is this a surprise? It would seem to be the expected thing.Pershing(a great number it seems), MacArthur and Eisenhower did for certain, and who knows what percentage of other senior military leaders did also. Most, probably. Petraeus was walking a well-worn path.If this were France no-one would care. If this were a more civilized age, ditto.

Freder Frederson said..."I am sorry for his loss, but his complete lack of decency is still unacceptable.

I'm sorry, what has Donald Trump lost? You surely can't be referring to Mr. Khan. How could he possibly be lacking in decency."**************

For one, he waved around the Constitution AS IF it had anything in it to contradict Trump's position on temporarily halting Muslim immigration. Khan may be "amazed" by our founding document, but he obviously doesn't understand its plain meaning.

Second, he repeated the specious claim that terrorism isn't about Islam---AS IF Radical Islamism isn't the avowed basis for ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups.

I did which is why I asked. To quote:"It was followed by revelations that FBI agents searched "years" of Kelley's personal e-mails not pertinent or relevant to the case, which was followed by false descriptions of her personal emails by a series of hints to the press about emails between U.S.’s top commander in Afghanistan, General John R. Allen. The accusations sparked an investigation by the Department of Defense, in which the Inspector General's report concluded the government leaks and accusations were baseless and the email content was not improper."

Yeah, well it's interesting Petraeus/Betray-us was forced out in shame (he was assumed by many to be a presidential hopeful) and Allen was treated more respectfully and is now campaigningfor Obama's chosen one.

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

**************************

So, please: no more bullshit from unprincipled politicians condescendingly instructing us "we're better than that", of that "those remarks do not reflect who we are."

You can argue all day long on the merits of Trumps's proposals, but he WOULD have the power to do what he says needs doing.

That is just one take on it. See MayBee's USA Today link above.There simply wasnt a complete investigation done, he was allowed to retire. And such masses of stuff - why?Note also that Jill Khawam Kelley has numerous back door contacts with ME governments. The whole thing smells. A proper press would have been all over this.

Here's what I said in the WSJ:" Losing a son in combat does not give the parents immunity when criticizing Trump. They have every right to say what they think, but they can't expect Trump not to respond. That the DNC would take advantage of these parents' grief and parade them for political purposes is immoral. Trump is not reacting to the son's death other than to sympathize. He is reacting to the father's political statement and the DNC's willingness to use the parents in an inappropriate way. It was a sleazy act by the DNC." I stand by it.

I happened to hear David Brooks on NPR ( I know I was driving somewhere and I sometimes listen then because it is marginally better than the screaming local DJs!) He was discussing his view of the D convention and the R's. I haven't heard him in years, but his tenure at the Times has not sharpened his thinking any. Early onset dementia?

MayBee said...Yeah, well it's interesting Petraeus/Betray-us was forced out in shame (he was assumed by many to be a presidential hopeful) and Allen was treated more respectfully and is now campaigningfor Obama's chosen one.

There is no relationship between the two situations. There was no affair and no transfer of classified documents.

ARM- there was a big relationship- one woman was at the center of both scandals.But where Jill Kelley's questions about the emails that turned out to be from Paula Broadstreet was an invitation for the FBI to go into Petraeus's private emails, they did no such thing with Allen.He was allowed to retire with the explanation that the 3,000 emails in 2 years were "flirtatious".

We are on the precipice of a major cultural explosion. The media, which is now utterly and hopelessly corrupt, is about to be blown to pieces (metaphorically). The corruption has reached "Masque of the Red Death" levels, Nero fiddling while Rome burned levels, and way beyond Teapot Dome scandal levels. A storm has been brewing and everything has coalesced around one figure: Donald Trump.

A few heroics voices are starting to join together -- Par Caddell, Julian Assange, Glen Grunwald, Doug Schoen, Piers Morgan, and of course, the Trump team -- to expose this rotting house of cards. The seminal moment of peak rot may have been Wolf Blitzer dancing at Hillary's coronation, but the onslaught against Trump using Mr. Kahn as a foil is definitely the trigger point.

I predict we're about to witness the biggest backlash against the media of our lifetimes. It is ripe for plucking.

Althouse cons continuing to apologize for and rationalize all of Trump's political/social/no human decency shortcomings notwithstanding, why do folks still care what blowhard Alex Castellanos has to say?

He's been consistently wrong re: everything to do w/president elections going back 8 yrs. To be fair you could say this about most con/lib pundits who have a keen grasp of the obvious on a good day!

>

We now return you to Althouse cons apologizing for their boy Trump. Indeed, a 24/7 exercise in pretzel logic futility.

MayBee said...ARM- there was a big relationship- one woman was at the center of both scandals.

Petraeus's woman was a nut job. "According to the FBI, Allen had received anonymous e-mail messages, sent by someone identified as "kelleypatrol" (later found to be Paula Broadwell) advising him to stay away from Jill Kelley. Allen forwarded it to Kelley and they discussed a concern that someone was cyberstalking them."

@DT: "Hillary voted for the Iraq War, not me."Yeah, but now she's the Dem in chief. So she voted for the war, so most Dems thought that was horrible and picked O instead, so that was so long ago, so now that is irrelevant. Whatcha gonna do about it, Donald?

"it's a choice between temperament and character." He means Trump's fighting spirit and Hill's utter corruption?

@AA: "I keep hearing all these Trump antagonists portraying Trump as "dark," but calling someone dark is dark" There you go again, umpiring language, calling balls and strikes. Of course, the meaning of terms is situational: when Dems use dark, it's good and correct,; when GOPers use it, it's racist. Nothing more to it.

For those of you unfamiliar with the UCMJ Here's my favorite: "Article 134. General article: Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. " I would venture to say that Allen retired because he was guilty under Article 134 of "conduct of a nature to bring discredit on the armed forces". I respect him for making the decision to retire because he may have besmirched the honor of the Corps. I did not listen to his speech nor am I concerned with Trump's deferments. There were those of us who chose the military in that period ( I admit my draft board was breathing down my neck!). There were those who didn't. We all live with the results of those decisions - they were purely personal.

there were various ways, senior staff was purged, mccrystal through the bogus hastings piece, which a pentagon review found no evidence for, petraeus, through that rigamarole, allen stepped down in tandem, mattis, they just didn't like the fact he wouldnt cotton down to thee sepah, general flynn saw the writing on the wall.

@ARM There is no doubt that he exchanged e-mails of a, perhaps," flirtatious" nature with a woman not his wife. That is sufficient grounds under article 134. I used to call it the conduct unbecoming an officer clause, which is its essential meaning. No one knows the "truth" because the investigation has never been released.

"Black soul", huh. "Black character", really? Clearly class diversity of the racist kind. I remember the "black hole" interpretation. The NAACP should have fun with this revelation. Well, this, and the class diversity that permeates the DNC.

I've been wrong about Trump enough times to stop predicting how it will turn out, but one clue came from CNN this morning. They had on three white liberals and one Muslim Trump supporter. For several minutes I watched these three white guys attack and disrespect the Muslim for being insufficiently outraged at Trump's disrespect for Muslims.

Even if true, which is debatable, still not an affair or the transfer of classified documents.

Fair enough.

But in the article I linked to, a Democratic Congresswoman points out they went into Petraeus's private email to find his transgressions. They did not do that with Allen.They stopped before they got there. But they won't explain why.

Nor has anyone fully explained why Allen, while busy overseeing the war in Afghanistan, exchanged a blizzard of correspondence with Kelley — between 20,000 and 30,000 pages of e-mails, according to some senior defense officials. Other officials have said that figure includes many duplicate notes and exaggerates the extent of their communications, adding that there were only about 300 total e-mails.

The Defense Department inspector general investigated and concluded in 2013 that Allen had not committed any wrongdoing. But it has kept its report and all of Allen’s e-mails under lock and key.---------------------

Petraeus was publicly humiliated. His emails were read and that's how they found his wrong doing. Allen was retired, but his emails weren't read. One is assumed Republican, one is campaigning for Hillary.I mean, obviously we don't know what happened. But I don't think Hillary needs another email scandal.

MayBee, you are attempting a false equivalence that is quite clearly complete BS. No affair, no classified documents transferred. And, the governments investigation was so out of line that it is still facing a viable law suit.

I guess I just do not live in the kind of circle where you fly on private planes with a General and exchange 300-3,000 emails with one and more with another.What is that life all about? Is that something we need for our military?

But one man was taken down in that investigation because they used it to read his private emails.

Since, at a minimum, they also read Kelley's emails they also read Allen's private emails, at least those from him to her. Apparently they found nothing actionable. There has never been any suggestion that he passed classified information to her.

What Petraeus did with Paula was share an email account they would both use but not send. So they shared an email address they would log onto and then read what was saved.Did they look for something like that with Allen?

Or were they happy in the knowledge a general was sharing 300-3000 flirtatious emails with a socialite and letting her fly on his plane for no particular reason?

"I think the Obama administration took General "Betray-Us" in to destroy him. They feared the competition from him."

Where did the notion ever come from that Petraeus was some kind of uber threatening potential candidate? He's completely untested in any kind of campaign. I've heard him give a few prepared remarks, and he's as dull as dishwater. I agree that Petraeus was quite ambitious, but so was former general and perennial presidential candidate Wesley Clarke, but despite an impressive resumes, his campaigns always went nowhere.